|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 9, 2024 9:58:20 GMT
It is a downward death spiral. You tell them to improve, but then withhold the very money they need to improve, so can't improve. You then without a greater amount of their money, there is no money to maintain current standards let alone improve. The way TfL engages with SMEs needs a radical review ... You can't treat them in the same way as you do large multinationals. You starve an SME of funds, you get what happens with Sullivan's .... you get stuck in a hole you can't get out of ... This issue is of TfLs own making ... their blinkered one size fits all solution just creates a doom to failure. I thought public bodies were supposed to be supporting SMEs Difference is TfL don't specifically ask SMEs to enter the market. They effectively lay out their terms and if a SME wants to enter on those terms then they can, but nobody is asking them to and if they get into trouble then they shouldn't expect different treatment as nobody told them to enter it in the first place. So politicians say one things and do another .... Not a shocker .... who is not to say TfL version of events is not yet more bull. Upshoot is I believe Mr Sullivan is more trustworthy than TfL. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 9, 2024 10:20:23 GMT
I would probably say TfL is more trustworthy on this one, simply because this will probably end up being dragged through the courts at some point and if TfL are lying in public statements then something is very wrong. I don't know why you're believing what a politician is saying if its not documented in the company's own terms anyway. TfL in this instance would have no need to lie, the graphs show Sullivan is performing poorly and TfL make no secret they withhold payments and issue fines if performance is not up to scratch. It's not their problem if Sullivan are having mileage issues as they're not a charity to pump money into a failing operation. Their best move is to just give it to someone else on tender who won't need the money pumped into them. |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 9, 2024 10:20:45 GMT
The figures speak for themselves. Continual failure to meet targets, school buses not turning up, numerous buses running around without blinds etc etc |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 9, 2024 10:23:39 GMT
I would probably say TfL is more trustworthy on this one, simply because this will probably end up being dragged through the courts at some point and if TfL are lying in public statements then something is very wrong. I don't know why you're believing what a politician is saying if its not documented in the company's own terms anyway. TfL in this instance would have no need to lie, the graphs show Sullivan is performing poorly and TfL make no secret they withhold payments and issue fines if performance is not up to scratch. It's not their problem if Sullivan are having mileage issues as they're not a charity to pump money into a failing operation. Their best move is to just give it to someone else on tender who won't need the money pumped into them. I thought you would be someone that stood up for the small person and not supportive of multinationals. Like you, I am expecting more to come out on this, but unlike you, I am not expecting TfL to come out very well |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 9, 2024 11:29:30 GMT
I would probably say TfL is more trustworthy on this one, simply because this will probably end up being dragged through the courts at some point and if TfL are lying in public statements then something is very wrong. I don't know why you're believing what a politician is saying if its not documented in the company's own terms anyway. TfL in this instance would have no need to lie, the graphs show Sullivan is performing poorly and TfL make no secret they withhold payments and issue fines if performance is not up to scratch. It's not their problem if Sullivan are having mileage issues as they're not a charity to pump money into a failing operation. Their best move is to just give it to someone else on tender who won't need the money pumped into them. I thought you would be someone that stood up for the small person and not supportive of multinationals. Like you, I am expecting more to come out on this, but unlike you, I am not expecting TfL to come out very well I think we would all "stand up" for the small person if they were providing a good level of service that meets the expectations of the client (TfL) and the passenger. In the case of Sullivans, they have failed to meet the expectations of both. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 9, 2024 11:34:08 GMT
I thought you would be someone that stood up for the small person and not supportive of multinationals. Like you, I am expecting more to come out on this, but unlike you, I am not expecting TfL to come out very well I think we would all "stand up" for the small person if they were providing a good level of service that meets the expectations of the client (TfL) and the passenger. In the case of Sullivans, they have failed to meet the expectations of both. But instead of offering advice and working with Sullivans on improvement plans there response is to actively discourage them from bidding? Does that not seem odd to anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Aug 9, 2024 11:38:23 GMT
I think we would all "stand up" for the small person if they were providing a good level of service that meets the expectations of the client (TfL) and the passenger. In the case of Sullivans, they have failed to meet the expectations of both. But instead of offering advice and working with Sullivans on improvement plans there response is to actively discourage them from bidding? Does that not seem odd to anyone? How do we know TfL didn’t try that though? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 9, 2024 11:39:32 GMT
But instead of offering advice and working with Sullivans on improvement plans there response is to actively discourage them from bidding? Does that not seem odd to anyone? How do we know TfL didn’t try that though? Maybe they did but neither statement alludes to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 9, 2024 11:43:01 GMT
I think we would all "stand up" for the small person if they were providing a good level of service that meets the expectations of the client (TfL) and the passenger. In the case of Sullivans, they have failed to meet the expectations of both. But instead of offering advice and working with Sullivans on improvement plans there response is to actively discourage them from bidding? Does that not seem odd to anyone? But has TfL done this with the other operators? Sullivan entered the market knowing they weren't getting special treatment and it's not TfL's job to give them special treatment just because they're independent. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 9, 2024 11:48:20 GMT
But instead of offering advice and working with Sullivans on improvement plans there response is to actively discourage them from bidding? Does that not seem odd to anyone? How do we know TfL didn’t try that though? Mr Sullivan mentioned on his group he was discouraged from bidding so either he is lying or TfL are. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 9, 2024 11:55:55 GMT
But instead of offering advice and working with Sullivans on improvement plans there response is to actively discourage them from bidding? Does that not seem odd to anyone? But has TfL done this with the other operators? Sullivan entered the market knowing they weren't getting special treatment and it's not TfL's job to give them special treatment just because they're independent. I’m not suggesting special treatment because they are an SME, but certainly TfL could have a different approach to these types of operators to encourage them to come into TfL. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 9, 2024 12:00:52 GMT
But has TfL done this with the other operators? Sullivan entered the market knowing they weren't getting special treatment and it's not TfL's job to give them special treatment just because they're independent. I’m not suggesting special treatment because they are an SME, but certainly TfL could have a different approach to these types of operators to encourage them to come into TfL. But will TfL want to encourage them? I'm sure after this they'd probably not touch an independent with a barge pole. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 9, 2024 12:05:31 GMT
I’m not suggesting special treatment because they are an SME, but certainly TfL could have a different approach to these types of operators to encourage them to come into TfL. But will TfL want to encourage them? I'm sure after this they'd probably not touch an independent with a barge pole. I think that’s where TfL is making a mistake. There are great operators within the M25 areas particularly on the Surrey borders that would make great TfL operators. Falcon would make a great operator and would be a great South west and West London challenger to Abellio, Metroline, GAL and RATP. It isn’t to say they want to be a TfL operator though and the Sulllivans situation may discourage them even further. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 9, 2024 12:12:41 GMT
I’m not suggesting special treatment because they are an SME, but certainly TfL could have a different approach to these types of operators to encourage them to come into TfL. But will TfL want to encourage them? I'm sure after this they'd probably not touch an independent with a barge pole. If you want to encourage the economy to grow, which is what Labours fiscal plans are totally reliant on, you will be reliant on SMEs to do it. Stifle the SMEs and Labour's recovery plans get shot out the window. Public bodies, especially ones run by those who share the same allegiance as the government should be doing all they can to stimulate growth by working with SMEs, not attempting to put them out of business. It is as though some within the party want Labour to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Aug 9, 2024 12:27:03 GMT
I’m not suggesting special treatment because they are an SME, but certainly TfL could have a different approach to these types of operators to encourage them to come into TfL. But will TfL want to encourage them? I'm sure after this they'd probably not touch an independent with a barge pole. It would all boil down to how that independent operated. Look at Uno, they were given the 383 (yes, they are a Uni and they had run bus services outside London too) but they looked after the service, even adding a TfL approved branding scheme in conjunction with Barnet Council. The presentation of the buses, even the oldest 07 plate still in TfL service, is impeccable. So when things unravelled for Sullivan, TfL weren't silly and gave them all the work. They gave them another route, and are allowing things to gradually improve. They will do well with the 298. I think Sullivans bit off more than they can chew with 12 routes, shiny new buses with private plates... but as time went on (since 2017) there were problems. Other SME's in the past did OK, perhaps a contract term before selling up, like ECT (Ealing Community Transport) who had the 195, Armchair who had the 65, E2, E8, 260 back in the day before Metroline bought them, so I don't think TfL have any aversion to small businesses. Though like a small child who's eaten a meal that made them gag or retch, they may be scared to try an independent again for a little while  I think TfL are looking to reduce the amount of operators in general (though they know this is not possible), and yes, they had a pipe dream of running the buses themselves, but that will never happen. Right now, they just need reliable buses to tempt more people from their cars and deliver cleaner air (hence the push to hybrids and electrics). Satire and humour aside, Sullivan's brought this on themselves, but it was the magnitude of the flounce that stunned people  |
|
